20231102Reply Comments.pdf

Matthew A.Nykiel (ISB No.10270)
710 N 6th Street
Boise,ID 83701
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for the Idaho Conservation League
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER IDAHO POWER
COMPANY’S APPLICATION FOR
AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT
CHANGES TO THE COMPENSATION
STRUCTURE APPLICABLE TO
CUSTOMER ON-SITE GENERATION
UNDER SCHEDULES 6,8,AND 84 AND
TO ESTABLISH AN EXPORT CREDIT
METHODOLOGY
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO.IPC-E-23-14
REPLY COMMENTS
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE
Introduction
COMES NOW the Idaho Conservation League (“ICL”),and through counsel,submits
these reply comments to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”)regarding Idaho
Power Company’s (“IPC”or “Company”)application in the above captioned matter.We reply to
initial comments delivered by the Commission Staff (“Staff”),City of Boise (“City”),Clean
Energy Opportunities for Idaho (“CEO”),Idaho Irrigation Pumper’s Association (“IIPA”),and
Vote Solar,and anticipate comments of the Company.1 Initial comments of parties were well
conceived and articulated.The following replies are offered in hopes of arriving at commonality
between parties to implement a functional distributed generation (“DG”)program.
Before addressing the specific policy provision of the Company’s application,we note the
depth of public participation in this and foregoing dockets on net metering and distributed energy.
1 Idahydro and Micron,Inc.are also intervenor parties,but did not submit initial comments.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,Case No.IPC-E-23-14 Page 1
Idaho Conservation League –Reply Comments
RECEIVED
2023 NOVEMBER 2, 2023 4:25PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
To date,the Commission has received over four hundred written comments and some forty
testimonies were delivered at public hearings held in Boise on October 24.Energy policy and
regulation in this docket is immensely complicated,and we commend members of the public for
participating and voicing their interests.Indeed,DG ownership is perhaps the most direct way for
the public to participate in the energy system.As the grid continues to evolve,we see public
interest and interaction with energy production and informed usage as key to a well functioning,
cost-effective,and decarbonized energy system.
As an initial matter,we briefly note that the Commission is not obligated to revise Idaho
Power’s current net metering program.Parties identified in initial comments that distributed solar
penetration and exported energy volumes remain low in Idaho Power’s service territory.2 So far as
there is parity between the Company’s retail rates and the export value of DG energy,net
metering remains a simple,intuitive,and customer accessible policy option.There may be such a
time that cost shifting becomes so substantial to require reforming net metering,but it is our
opinion that Idaho Power’s application does not demonstrate such urgency.We recommend the
Commission monitor for material cost shifting,while providing the still nascent local solar
industry needed stability,predictable rates for net metering customers,and time for DG
technologies and management practices to mature under the existing net metering schedules.
The remainder of these reply comments address components of the Company’s application
and parties’initial positions.Beyond specific policy considerations and methodologies,we hope
to articulate a theme of understandability and acceptance.A myriad of interconnected choices are
on the table,each posing substantial changes to bills and how DG customers interact with the
energy system.These are complicated issues,and any durable program will be one that is legible
2 Vote Solar Comments at 13.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,Case No.IPC-E-23-14 Page 2
Idaho Conservation League –Reply Comments
to customers.The issues are numerous:first,implementation policy considerations will be
grouped together,then,components of the export credit rate (“ECR”)will be addressed.
I.Implementation Policies
1.Timeline and update schedule
a.An Initial Update on or around June 1,2025 is appropriate and allows time for
customer understandability.
ICL strongly agrees with Staff’s recommendation to update ECR components beginning
June 1,2025.3 The Company’s offered effective date of January 1,2024 and initial update in June
2024 would upend long existing net metering programs,implement an export credit rate,and
revise it all within five months.This timeline would bypass the summer rates noticed and
discussed in this docket,adding complexity and difficulty for customers to understand future rates
in the most impactful billing season under the new export credit system.A 2025 initial update
affords customers a full calendar year and seasonal cycle to adjust to any implemented program.
b.Updates to the ECR should be on a bi-annual cycle to benefit price stability and
customer understandability.
We recommend a two-year ECR update cycle to follow Idaho Power’s submission and
acknowledgment of its most recent IRP,beginning in 2026.Any ECR update cycle must balance
accuracy,price stability,and customer understandability.The IRP represents the most
comprehensive review of the Company’s generation and resource portfolio,and ought to inform
the value of exported energy onto its system.The Company identifies three inputs of the ECR as
tied to IRP analysis:avoided resource costs,transmission and distribution (“T&D”)deferral,and
3 Staff’s Initial Comments at 31.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,Case No.IPC-E-23-14 Page 3
Idaho Conservation League –Reply Comments
peak capacity hours.4 Aggregating the market and hourly input components into the same
two-year span would simplify accessibility,notice,and acceptance by customers.A single
bi-annual spring filing makes for a consistent and more predictable process,while adding
beneficial price stability for DG customers.
c.A transition period would promote understandability for residential customers not
involved in this,or preceding dockets.
The complexity of this docket and proposed changes to the Company’s residential and
general service net metering schedules necessitates a transition period.A chief quality of net
metering is simplicity and understandability.In striving for accuracy,the Company’s proposal
trades a straightforward design for a complex export rate,which will fluctuate annually,
seasonally,and by time of day.Moreover,the Company’s general rate case,IPC-E-23-11,filed
concurrently with this case proposes substantial changes to IPC’s consumer rate designs,further
adding to the complexity of changes Idaho ratepayers may face at the close of the year.
The result would be substantial customer confusion.A number of public participants in
Staff’s virtual public workshops held on September 6 and September 7 this year,as well as at the
Public hearings held in Boise on October 24 expressed uncertainty around bill impacts and the
intertwined issues in this docket and the rate case.ICL members served by IPC have voiced
similar concerns.
ICL is sympathetic to Staff and the Company's contentions that the lengthy regulatory
process to reform net metering since 2017 could serve as notice.5 No doubt parties have walked a
long road to get to this point.We also acknowledge the Company and Commission’s persistent
efforts to notice customers of potential regulatory changes.But the parties advocating before the
5 Staff Comments at 40;Application at 25.
4 Anderson Di at 31.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,Case No.IPC-E-23-14 Page 4
Idaho Conservation League –Reply Comments
Commission are not,in a material sense,reflective of customers broadly.The issues in this docket
and the resulting bill impacts are immensely complex and require full-time professional attention
to assess and comprehend.Further,the unique generation profiles of DG systems and use patterns
make bill impacts ratepayer-specific.Confusion,even at this late stage of the proceedings,is
understandable.Notice is certainly important,but so are gradualism and customer acceptance.
A reasonable transition period for current residential net metering customers would
alleviate extant customer confusion and ease customer interaction with any revised program.We
support a year-long transition period to span the critical summer months and move net metering
compensation to an adopted export system.
As a final note,we do not recommend a transition period for Schedule 84.The capacity of
professional operations to interpret the nuances of their energy programs far exceeds most
residential customers,alleviating many of the concerns above.Additionally,members of the
irrigation community have prioritized clarity and finality.CEO addressed these issues and
provided a workable solution that bifurcates timelines for residential,small general service and
irrigator schedules in their comments.6
To summarize our position on implementation timing,we recommend:A January 1,2024
effective date for Schedule 84;a year-long transition period for Schedules 6 and 8;an initial ECR
update on or around June 1,2025;and subsequent ECR updates every two years following Idaho
Power’s IRP cycle.
6 CEO comments at 2.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,Case No.IPC-E-23-14 Page 5
Idaho Conservation League –Reply Comments
2.Project Eligibility Cap
a.Lifting the Schedule 84 100 kW project eligibility caps is safe and benefits large DG
customers.
ICL supports the Company’s proposal to lift the 100 kW eligibility cap for Schedule 84
projects and allow for interconnection of systems sized the greater of 100 kW or demand.The
company has adequately demonstrated in its application,direct testimonies,and elsewhere that
DG projects larger than 100 kW do not inordinately increase system risks or safety concerns.7 The
Company’s attention,collaboration,and efforts here are sincerely appreciated.We also note IIPA’s
support of this proposal and the absence of opposition from all other parties to this case.We defer
to the discussion between Staff and the Company on how to best assess project demand size.
b.The 25 kW residential cap is adequate now,and the Commission should monitor for when
it becomes limiting.
At present,there is not substantial demonstrated demand for DG projects larger than the
current Schedule 6 and 8 project eligibility cap,but the Commision should establish a monitoring
plan and an associated demand threshold that,when exceeded,would require the residential cap to
be reassessed.Staff and the Company’s comments on the adequacy of the Schedule 6 and 8
project cap are well-reasoned.8 But it’s likely that with foreseeable electrification and growing
demand,an increasing number of Schedule 6 and 8 systems will approach 25 kW capacity.We
agree with Staff’s recommendation to monitor and consider lifting the cap at a later date and add
that the Commission should provide direction on when it would become appropriate to reexamine
the issue.We also invite the Company’s input here in its forthcoming replies.
8 Staff Comments at 32;Anderson Di at 5.
7 Ellsworth Di at 27.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,Case No.IPC-E-23-14 Page 6
Idaho Conservation League –Reply Comments
3.Tariff Language Request
ICL strongly opposes IIPA’s request for tariff language relying on market predictions
because tariffs should present only verifiable,objective information on service offerings.IIPA
notes the Company anticipates energy prices generally and export rates to decline.9 This may be
so in the short term because of historically high energy prices,but it is unreasonable to assert
market predictions in a regulated tariff sheet.Such a prediction would amount to an unverifiable
declaration by the Company.The purpose of a tariff sheet is to provide regulated notice of service
offerings to customers.It's inappropriate to make market predictions or advise customers of their
participation there.Should the Company want to advise customers on future changes to rates,it
may elucidate the methods and inputs used to arrive at those values or do so through other media.
The Commission should reject IIPA’s suggestion and any tariff that includes the proposed or
similar language.
II.Export Credit Rate
1.Reject a separate ECR for irrigators
The IIPA’s request for a separate export rate for Schedules 6 and 8 and Schedule 84 should
be rejected.10 As an initial matter,such a proposal was not considered in the VODER Study and
falls outside the direction of the Commision for consideration in this docket.Establishing a novel
export rate would,beyond any policy considerations and questions of propriety,require,at
minimum,an equivalent study as done in the VODER study.IIPA’s comments and brief analysis
fall well short.
10 IIPA Comments at 3.
9 IIPA Comments at 2.
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,Case No.IPC-E-23-14 Page 7
Idaho Conservation League –Reply Comments
The purpose of an export credit rate is to value the energy delivered to the grid –it matters
not what type of customer delivers power.Any differentiation in rates should be dependent on
when power is delivered to the grid.Avoided T&D costs based on location may also be relevant,
but assigning locational value within a customer class with sufficient granularity is infeasible
even before considering substantial intraclass variability.IIPA’s analysis focuses on seasonal
differences in the export profiles of irrigators from residential and general schedule DG exporters.
While it is true that Schedule 84 customers show distinct seasonal consumption and
corresponding export patterns,any energy exported to the grid in a given moment should be
priced the same,be it from residential or irrigation customers.Electricity in time has equal value,
regardless of its source.The ECR methodology in the VODER study and at issue in this docket
accounts for these time differences through multiple mechanisms.Using a consumer class as a
proxy for export timing would be redundant and not accurately reflect the value of time-variant or
seasonal energy prices from any source.
2.Include non-zero fuel hedge and environmental benefits values
ICL supports commenters,Vote Solar,City of Boise,and Clean Energy Opportunities,in
positing non-zero fuel hedge and environmental value ECR components.An adopted ECR must
fully and comprehensively compensate DG customers.In lieu of an exact fuel hedge value,a
value equal to 5%of avoided energy costs is both reasonable and consistent with values assigned
in other jurisdictions.We also find that parties fully demonstrated that the environmental benefits
of non-carbon emitting resources are non-zero.Again,assigning a precise numerical value is
difficult,but any figure is certainly non-zero.If the Commission is unsatisfied with the analytic
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,Case No.IPC-E-23-14 Page 8
Idaho Conservation League –Reply Comments
methods promoted by parties,we recommend any adopted ECR include a placeholder value to be
addressed in future proceedings.
Conclusion
ICL appreciates the opportunity to provide additional commentary on the Company's
application and initial comments of the Parties.We value other parties'contributions and
perspectives and appreciate the opportunity to approach the issues in this docket as an ongoing
conversation.We request the Commission issue a decision that fosters continued growth of
distributed energy in Idaho Power’s service territory.To do so,the Commission should support
those policy requests and mechanisms that prioritize customer understandability and acceptance.
DATED this 2nd Day of November,2023.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Matthew A.Nykiel
Matthew A.Nykiel (ISB No.10270)
Attorney for Idaho Conservation League
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,Case No.IPC-E-23-14 Page 9
Idaho Conservation League –Reply Comments
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 2nd Day of November,2023,I delivered true and correct
copies of the foregoing REPLY COMMENTS to the following persons via the method of service
noted:
/s/Matthew A.Nykiel
Matthew A.Nykiel (ISB No.10270)
Attorney for Idaho Conservation League
Electronic Mail Only (See Order No.35058):
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Commission Staff
Chris Burdin
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
[e-mail]
Idaho Power Company
Lisa Nordstrom
Megan Goicoechea Allen
Donovan Walker
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Tim Tatum
Connie Aschenbrener
Grant Anderson
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Clean Energy Opportunities for Idaho
Kelsey Jae
Law for Conscious Leadership
920.N.Clover Dr.
Boise ID,83703
[e-mail]
Mike Heckler
Courtney White
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
IIPA
Eric Olsen
Echo Hawk &Olsen,PLLC
P.O.Box 6119
Pocatello,ID 83205
[e-mail]
Lance D.Kaufman,Ph.D
2623 Blue Bell Pl.
Corvallis OR,97330
[e-mail]
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,Case No.IPC-E-23-14 Page 10
Idaho Conservation League –Reply Comments
Micron Technology,Inc.
Jim Swier
Micron Technology,Inc.
8000 S.Federal Way
Boise ID,83707
Austin Rueschhoff
Thorvald Nelson
Austin W.Jensen
Holland &Hart,LLP
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
clmoser@hollandhart
IdaHydro
Tom Arkoosh
Arkoosh Law Office
913 W.River St.,Suite 450
P.O.Box 2900
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
City of Boise
Daryl Early
Deputy City Attorneys
Boise City Attorney’s Office
150 N.Capitol Blvd.,PO Box 500
Boise,ID 83701-0500
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Wil Gehl
Boise City Dept.of Public Works
[e-mail]
Vote Solar
Abigail R.Germaine
Elam &Burke PA
251 E.Front St.,Suite 300
PO Box 1539
Boise,ID 83701
[e-mail]
Kate Bowman
Vote Solar
299 S.Main St.,Suite 1300
PMB 93601
Salt Lake City,UT 84111
[e-mail]
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,Case No.IPC-E-23-14 Page 2
Idaho Conservation League –Reply Comments